Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Sarcasm is a wonderful thing... 😉
Just to clarify things, that whole 'poking with sticks' statement was not a contradiction. It was merely set up to open conclusions and opinions. With so little american forces in Iraq it's hard to not assume that they're bullying Iraq. And my statement of Americans not bullying them was my open opinion.
Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
And Drizzt pwns...
He surely does.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
He's drug the war out for this long, he may as well finish it.
He hasn't drug the war out. You can't honestly believe that he would intentionally propogate a war for no good reason. The problem is that he thought the people were going to welcome us as liberators. The only thing those people wanted was for Saddam to go. After that, we were finished as far as they were concerned. You've got three different groups that wanted the freedom to kill each other, and that's all we've brought to the people of Iraq. As I have said before, Saddam was the lynch pin on an enormous bag of shit. And now, those people have the freedom to kill each other. They want us out of their buisness, out of their country and out of their lives.
The fact that we have remained there reveals the true nature of our intentions. We went over there to loot that country and to give these huge corporations enormous buisness. You can't force freedom on people. The people of Iraq want freedom, but not our freedom. They want to divide themselves up into the three groups that exist there and fight each other. The only thing keeping that country together at this point is the US buisness interests.
Re: Bush's New Image after 31%: The Humble Fuhrer?
Originally posted by PVS
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-Blair-Pess-.mov
"Bring it on!" - "Wanted: dead or alive"...how were they misinterpreted, and what was the actual meaning?
Re: Re: Re: Bush's New Image after 31%: The Humble Fuhrer?
Originally posted by PVS
bring it on: lets solve this through diplomacydead or alive: we come in peace
Aha, I see the greater subtlety of those slogans now. I guess I'm from one of the "parts of the world which misinterpreted them", ie. Any region that adheres to the definitions of words as presented in a dictionary.
I wish I wasn't so close-minded.
Re: Bush's New Image after 31%: The Humble Fuhrer?
Originally posted by PVS
why not admit that there was no tie between saddam and osama, and how that was a mistake. admit the obvious: THE WHOLE ****ING WAR WAS A MISTAKE
The war is illegal, isn't it? Saddam never had WMD's, and that was the basis for war in the first place, so, if you ask me, the war is illegal based on that.
Originally posted by PVS
next press conference: bush admits that choking on a prezil at the beginning of his term was a mistake.
It's a mistake that someone saved his life, he means.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
He hasn't drug the war out. You can't honestly believe that he would intentionally propogate a war for no good reason. The problem is that he thought the people were going to welcome us as liberators. The only thing those people wanted was for Saddam to go. After that, we were finished as far as they were concerned. You've got three different groups that wanted the freedom to kill each other, and that's all we've brought to the people of Iraq. As I have said before, Saddam was the lynch pin on an enormous bag of shit. And now, those people have the freedom to kill each other. They want us out of their buisness, out of their country and out of their lives.The fact that we have remained there reveals the true nature of our intentions. We went over there to loot that country and to give these huge corporations enormous buisness. You can't force freedom on people. The people of Iraq want freedom, but not our freedom. They want to divide themselves up into the three groups that exist there and fight each other. The only thing keeping that country together at this point is the US buisness interests.
you seem to think that Saddam being in power meant that it stopped the iraqi factions (shi'ite, sunni and kurds) from killing each other...
thats only partly true...with Saddam in power it simply meant the the Sunni's could kill the Shi'ites and kurds at will and without retribution
you'll also be aware that since Saddam is gone...most of the killing in iraq is still perpetuated by sunni's against shi'tes so effectively nothing has changed
the only reason Saddam tried to stay in power for so long is that the areas where the Sunni were dominant had virtually nothing of value...it was the Shi'ite south where all the oil fields are and the Kurdish north where the best agriculture lands are
i wonder if you also saw the poll of Iraqi people that was published the other day that said that despite everything that has happened in the war and all the killing since...70% of Iraqis would still have wanted it in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein
strangely enough the Iraqi population is 70% non Sunni
Originally posted by jaden101
i wonder if you also saw the poll of Iraqi people that was published the other day that said that despite everything that has happened in the war and all the killing since...70% of Iraqis would still have wanted it in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The only thing those people wanted was for Saddam to go.
No, I didn't see the poll. Nor do I need to see polls of Iraqi citizens to know they don't want us there. We came, we did what they wanted, and now they want us out. And nothing of what you said changes the fact that we have out lived our usefulness to them. And nothing we do will change the fact that they want to operate under their own brand of "freedom". And that freedom has everything to do with fighting each other.
And when I call Saddam a lynch pin, I mean he kept the shit in that country from spilling over into other regions, on top of keeping that country coherent. I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein, but he served a purpose.
and just to be clear, i didnt find the 'dead or alive' comment to be irresponsible. he was referring to the man who ordered the attacks on 9/11. perhaps his hokey cowboy phrasing made it obvious that it was all just tough talk with no plan to back it up. think about it. a public call for "dead or alive" is clasically a call to bounty hunters, citizens etc. in other words *best bill lumberg impression* "yeeeeah....we cant seem to find osama by ourselves, so if anyone can just go ahead and bring him in...that would be teriffic...mmmkay? thaaaaaaanks". i dont know...it just made a joke out of it, having to see 'hopalong dubya' live out his childhood fantasies of being john wayne.
but then again, i prefer that he does that shit because its a huge red flag to know its all bullshitting. every time george plays pretend, get ready for mt everest sized piles of bullshit. its a dead give away.
what, im wrong?
remember maverick from 'top gun' standing triumphantly and so cinimatically on an aircraft carrier deck telling us that military operations in iraq had come to an end under the banner "mission accomplished"? the second that plane touched down and saw that he was in it, my bullshit radar exploded.
Originally posted by PVS
remember maverick from 'top gun' standing triumphantly and so cinimatically on an aircraft carrier deck telling us that military operations in iraq had come to an end under the banner "mission accomplished"? the second that plane touched down and saw that he was in it, my bullshit radar exploded.
I can't believe you. You're incredible! The economy is booming. Gas prices have stabalized. More Americans have health insurance than ever before. Social security has been fixed. Big buisness has been reeled in and made to be honest with the American people. For the first time since the first congress we have a totally honest and lobby free representative government. Our international reputation has never been stronger. And the drug companies have admitted that restless leg syndrom was a myth! Are a few dead soldiers really that big a price to pay?
And when I call Saddam a lynch pin, I mean he kept the shit in that country from spilling over into other regions, on top of keeping that country coherent. I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein, but he served a purpose.
he kept it coherent by slaughtering half a million non sunni's in the 10 years between the gulf wars?
yet how much did we hear about that in the western world?...ziltch
he kept it from spilling into other regions...except iran and kuwait
*best bill lumberg impression* "yeeeeah....we cant seem to find osama by ourselves, so if anyone can just go ahead and bring him in...that would be teriffic...mmmkay?
hahahaha...office space is pure genius
Actually, Phoenix, I think you should answer this:
Originally posted by PVS
dont be a glutton for rhetoric. WHAT must be "finished"? HOW will it be "finished"? and what makes you assume we are capable of "finishing" it?
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Americans aren't trying to bully anyone.Then again, they are only poking Iraq with a stick.
No, the Bush-administration is bullying Afghanistan and Iraq.
And I’d like to see you use the “stick”-comment to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who’ve lost family and friends…
Originally posted by The Omega
Actually, Phoenix, I think you should answer this:No, the Bush-administration is bullying Afghanistan and Iraq.
And I’d like to see you use the “stick”-comment to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who’ve lost family and friends…
thats a bit misleading isnt it...while its true that hundreds of thousands of iraqis may have lost loved ones it doesnt mean that hundreds of thousands have died
the best estimates are between 37,000 and 43,000 dead since in 3 years
if you boil it down to a purely numbers game then that is a marked improvement on the best estimates of between 350,000 and 500,000 in the that the regime killed between the gulf wars and those numbers dont take into consideration the 1,000,000+ that died while saddam was fleecing the oil for food programme to build the 40+ presidential palaces in 10 years with the money that was supposed to go towards food and medicine for the people
Originally posted by jaden101
he kept it coherent by slaughtering half a million non sunni's in the 10 years between the gulf wars?
so be it. What buisness is it of ours? Are we stopping social injustice by allowing more war? Economic sanctions won't stop it, but neither will open war. What happened before is no longer relevant. What happens after our intervention is most relevant. And what has happened post our intervention? Not one damn thing that is helpful. You still have three groups of people who want to kill each other...only they have no national face to stop them from doing so.
You want to know my real opinion? Let them kill each other. Let them die. And when all is said and done, go in and make a deal with the party that is still alive.
Originally posted by jaden101
thats a bit misleading isnt it...while its true that hundreds of thousands of iraqis may have lost loved ones it doesnt mean that hundreds of thousands have diedthe best estimates are between 37,000 and 43,000 dead since in 3 years
if you boil it down to a purely numbers game then that is a marked improvement on the best estimates of between 350,000 and 500,000 in the that the regime killed between the gulf wars and those numbers dont take into consideration the 1,000,000+ that died while saddam was fleecing the oil for food programme to build the 40+ presidential palaces in 10 years with the money that was supposed to go towards food and medicine for the people
Big Liar!!
1963-1975, the US Troops killed more than three millions of Vietnameses.
Since the first Gulf War to today, at least a million Iraqis were killed by the US Troops, in the other words, they're killed by the US bloody goverment.